Bitcoin Forum

So there is a group of people that are really against segwit and I don't really understand it. Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure I know what segwit is. Basically my understanding is that it removes the signature part of a transaction so that more transactions can be sent. Also, somehow it allows atomic swapping which is a fancy way of exchanging coins quickly. So why all the hate on segwit?

Politics and the need to have the Core developers out. Some say it was because it would render Bitmain's Asic boost useless, and all other reasons that distracted us away from the truth. But I believe it was politics.

I will leave Achow and the rest more learned about the situation to comment.

I dont think it's segwit, I think it is Core that they don't like.
If core thinks one thing they will always think that its a bad idea or make up some kind of tinfoil-hat story about how it is a conspiracy against bitcoin.

SegWit includes some code changes that would pave the way for the Lightning Network and some people are not keen on implementing that as a scaling solution. If they can sabotage SegWit, then they can delay the implementation of the Lightning Network.

They are also butt hurt, because SegWit2x failed. < SegWit had no hand in that >

The first step to the solution for the scaling is on the table, but politics & pride are getting in the way of progress. Is this sabotage? They might be in a better position to answer that. ^hmmmmmm^

I think it's about Lightning Network which isn't easily implemented without SegWit. The SegWit soft fork complicates a bit things but the main worry is Lightning Network that leads to more centralization.

Should be :  "Why do cabals hate Segwit so much?"  Very few Crypto fans "hate" Core.
Some of the most vicious Core haters I know on Twitter are never honest. Fake Satoshi is even a strong Core/Bitcoin hater. He attacks everybody on Twitter these days.

Ostensibly, their argument is that "Segwit is not Bitcoin" because signature information is segregated such that older nodes cannot fully verify Segwit transactions. Their arguments against the Lightning Network are an extension of that. In other words, they argue that if it's not a standard, on-chain transaction, it's not "Bitcoin."

On its face, this is a cop out. They push hard forks on the timeline of a few weeks. Older nodes cannot verify anything on the new chain after the fork has taken place. I don't see how one can support hard forks --- especially rushed hard forks, like Bcash's November fork --- and say that it's about older nodes. The truth is that they have a very different vision for scaling (if you could call it that) than Core. They want huge blocks. Segwit and Lightning are clearly obstacles to that.

As much as I can understand after the attacks of BCH owners to BTC blockchain most of anti segwit people changed their mind. Bitcoin really needs upgrade

What i have observed that Segwit blockage by Bitmain is one of the major reasons why some people are against segwit. Many myths are also created about this contradiction like Blockstream will have control over the bitcoin and they can dictate whatever they want but all these are just rumors nothing else.

segwit puts power where power shouldnt be, loading up on central nodes capable of discemenising aganst the norm of protocols that dont exist in the nural network of things just like the IOT but more passivevly integrated in the server database layer

Because it change bitcoin structure......Bcash has the closest structure to original bitcoin

Some of the earliest complaints (that seem to have fallen by the wayside now) were around fungibility, the notion that there is no discernible difference between one Bitcoin and another.  If some Bitcoins can be processed with lower fees or a higher priority than others because of a difference in formatting, technically they aren't identical anymore.  But since you can still exchange one type for another, it's not really a huge issue.

The general sense I get isn't so much that people hate SegWit, they just aren't sure of new things they haven't encountered before.  Some people aren't comfortable with change.  Give it time.

and its beginning to dilute the whole bitcoin brand, aspects of it are good but there you go

Isn't that about a change of block size? Could you go into a bit more of details, how exactly would it render ASIC boost useless?

maybe because people already feel comfortable with 1xxx instead of bxxx addresses
and from the miner's point of view, it would create less tx size hence more txs confirmed
thus will resulted tx fee rate to drop and less income for miners
because there is no more tx fee wars (competition) amongst users trying to get their tx included in a block
in short: segwit ~> less tx size ~> more txs/block ~> less tx fee rate ~> less miner's income

Honestly I think this is a huge part of it. The developers really failed at communicating what the change was to the average user. Now some might argue that it isn't their job, but there certainly should be some responsibility there for some party.

Anyway, yes, I think the reason there's a lot of hate, is because ther'es a lot of ignorance. People just genuinely do not comprehend how complicated bitcoin is, and how changes like segwit work, and what they do.

The implications of changes are also widely underappreciated and undercommunicated.

Because they were just the bandwagon army who follow the trend of those butthurt people when in fact they can't do anything about it.

To my understanding, SegWit is something that "removes the signature" (as you said) to compress the transactions in order to gather more and more transactions by reducing the size of each. Some hate SegWit because even after its implementation, we are still having the scaling issues ongoing as well as the fees are getting higher and higher each day. I think that if they hate it, it's their choice and let us remain quiet and see what they will come up with. For example, those who support BCH will eventually cry because it didn't solve the problem, but increased it by adding 7 MB more to its block size where we already know that after just 7 years, the blockchain size of BTC has bloated to more than 150 GB.

Sometimes I think about the economics regards how a network will scale.

Is it possible to do an analogy between bitcoin network and TCP/IP stack development  ? My point of analogy is that both networks have a finite supply (bitcoin 21 million and IPV4 2³².

For instance, when IPV4 was developed it faced the problem of address exhaustion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion ) the solution was network address translation (NAT)and Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)...

Sometimes I think that we are reaching a point of bitcoin supply curve that you can be either reward by LN channels or old fashion mining to keep the network running ...

ps-> I am not totally sure what I am talking about ... I pretty much appreciate any comments ...  

A lot of the hate stems from either a fundamental misunderstanding of how segwit works (or misrepresentation of how it works) or from hatred towards the Bitcoin Core developers.

Segwit does multiple things. It essentially defines a new type of address which, when spent from, does not have its signatures in the txid calculation. It also redefines the block size limit as a thing called block weight. A lot of opposition is from this block weight re-definition. The block weight makes spending from segwit addresses cheaper (less block weight) than non-segwit addresses, and a lot of people did not like that for some reason. This re-definition also means that if more segwit addresses are being spent from, then transactions will take up less block weight and thus more transactions can fit in a block.

Segwit allows for second layer solutions like the Lightning network to exist more easily. The Lightning Network is what would allow for atomic swaps, not segwit itself.

If you are introducing something in the market, skepticism will always be there.  Before it can be accepted in the market, it will need to be tested first or what are the good features it brings to the user.  Like bitcoin, in the beginning, there are also a lot of resistance but now, it is widely accepted as payments to a transaction.  Give it a little more time and you will see...

Miners hate it ( and their supporters too) as it will reduce fees. Bitcoin have been a lucrative business for them but the increasing fees are hurting everyone else. Just some greedy people wanting more cut in the pie.

same here maye,i really now nothing about that segwit2x although it
almost spread all over the forum,but most of the thread shows their negative
issue about such.is there more concrete explanation about segwit thats easy
to adapt so we might understand clearly i hope there is.

Explanation would be appreciated thank you!!!

I am also have the question about OP questions.  So i search some possible factors why segwit is not that popular to most of us. Will highlight the important matter.
1. SegWit doesn’t solve the most urgent capacity issue - SegWit, which is a soft fork solution for malleability, cannot solve the capacity problem.
2. SegWit will deepen Core’s impact on the community - As an implementation reference for Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core was of significant influence in the community. However, their influence has long been overrated by their actions. By abusing their previous influence, they’ve obstructed Bitcoin block size increase from happening, against the will of the community.
3. SegWit makes it harder for future block scaling - On technical terms, SegWit uses a transaction format that can be spent by those who don’t upgrade their nodes, with segregation of transaction data and signature data. This means SegWit is irrevocable once it’s activated, or all unspent transactions in SegWit formats will face the risk of being stolen.

ASICboost works by finding partial block header collisions for the transaction list. With colliding block headers, it is possible to test one nonce against multiple block headers, while sharing some of the computations. By sharing computations, the total energy requirement is reduced.

This can easily be done by using certain parts of the block header, such as the version bits, as a nonce. The disadvantage is that it's obvious you are using ASICboost. This would not be affected by segwit.

There is a hidden way of using ASICboost, which instead of using a nonce in the block header, the search is performed by randomizing the order of transactions.

In the absence of segwit, because of the tree structure, it is not necessary to hash every transaction to compute a new Merkle root; it is merely sufficient to swap branches, and recompute only the hashes further up the tree. This is much faster than recomputing the whole tree, as it replaces linear scaling with log scaling.

With Segwit, there are two Merkle trees, with the witness root, located in the first leaf of the main tree. The two trees must have the same order, so must both be shuffled and hashed together, and not only that, but you always have to recompute the hashes for the route to the first leaf of the tree. This vastly increases the computational effort to find the collisions needed to use the ASICboost technique.

An alternative strategy for hidden ASICboost is for the miner to include a transaction to themselves in each block. They then use that transaction as a nonce (e.g. by varying the transaction output values). However, this requires an ECDSA operation and recalculating the path through the Merkle tree to that transaction. Again, for a hash collision search, it is a considerable computational effort.

The short answer is that segwit does NOT render ASICboost useless. Visible ASICboost is not affected. However, hidden ASICboost is made more difficult.

The problem is that those arguments are incorrect. While they are what people believe, they are also false.

It does not solve the capacity problem (there really cannot be a solution to that problem though), but it certainly helps. The redefinition to block weight and the lower weight given to segwit spends helps to increase the number of transactions in a block.

Furthermore, by fixing transaction malleability, Segwit enables 2nd layer solutions like the Lightning Network to work much better and more securely. These solutions allow for even more transaction capacity.

The problem with that is that the Bitcoin Core developers did allow a block size increase to happen. Segwit is a block size increase, and it happened. Furthermore, if Bitcoin were ruled by Bitcoin Core, then Segwit would have activated immediately after it's release, not 10 months later.

That is the nature of ALL soft forks, not just segwit. All soft forks are irrevocable once activated, or all unspent transactions that used anything deployed in a soft fork can be stolen. But also any fork that "reverts" segwit (or a different soft fork like P2SH), will just be a hard fork.

I wholeheartedly agree with you:  as an engineer whose works in the Silicon Valley, I often run into the issue of  lacking/ under communication - engineers in general prefer to solve the problem than communicate the problem -- this is a big deal when it's come to the survival of this technology.  As we've learned over and over that the best technology is not always necessarily  the winner in the end.  We need marketeers and spokesmen to spread the good information.  Andreas Antonopoluos is a good example of who we should need to represent bitcoin core - unfortunately he is a one man show, and we could see that he is exhausted...we need more of Andreas...too bad Roger Ver was a good guys until he allowed his ego and greed took the better of him...

youve got the right answer,its Politics we know that inside crypto are those
whales big miners and developers that having some issue towards each other,maybe
the segwit2x was been politicized thats why its cancelled and still dont know yet
when will it be

I don't think segwit2x was canceled because of politics. It just wasn't the right time for a hard fork to increase the block size. Not enough tests were done, and it wouldn't even be a long term solution for the scalability problem. Trying to implement segwit2x was politics, but canceling it was a good decision in my opinion. We are not even taking full advantages of segwit alone, because most clients and exchanges as still not using it, so we must first wait for segwit adoption, like it already happen on LTC long time ago, and then we need to stay focused on the lightning network. I think off-chain solutions will be much more eficient than increasing the blocksize. If people really want that, they can just go to bcash.

That is why I bought into SegWit and that is why I am dissapointed in SegWit.


How has Core abused their influence?  Who or What entity should have the most influence over Bitcoin protocol?  Bitmain?  Roger Ver?

True, even if there are segwit being applied, in fact, the fees continue to rise which sometimes look unjust anymore. Well we can't blame them, we are not the only one who wants to gain profit using cryptos. Companies and businesses needs profit to see that they are effective and that they are going well. I just hope that when another segwit will be done, there will be a concern for the high transaction fees.

The short answer:  Ill-informed nincompoops who overestimate their own competence enjoy voicing opinions to which they are not entitled; and all which cannot be explained by stupidity, is caused by malice.  Cui bono?  “Follow the money.”

Longer answer, for those who wish to actually understand this issue:

The following told me all I needed to know about the anti-Segwit agitation and later, the so-called “Bitcoin Cash” scamcoin.  For more technical details, see also the references listed in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures database under CVE-2017-9230 (https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-9230), or the high-level description (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2469397.msg25576726#msg25576726) by Test User earlier in this thread.  N.b. that without Segwit, covert ASICBOOST is still wide-open for exploitation in “Bitcoin Cash”.

With boldface added, from this bitcoin-dev mailing list post on 2017-04-05 21:37:45 UTC (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html):


Observe that a purported patent on a 20+% economic advantage threatens to give certain parties a substantial centralized influence over who has the most hashrate.  It is not only cheating:  Overall, covert ASICBOOST opens the way for a direct attack against the Byzantine fault-tolerant security of the Bitcoin network.

So as for ulterior motives to oppose Segwit.  What overt arguments are advanced by the anti-Segwit side?

On the presumption that Segwit-haters must have at least some plausible excuse for their position, I have spent far too many hours searching the Net and reading what they say.  My objective:  Find even one good reason to oppose Segwit on technical grounds.  Yet despite my such efforts, I have never seen a valid technical argument against Segwit.  All the anti-Segwit pseudo-technical arguments are unsubstantive handwaving—yes, it’s a moderately big patch; of course, it’s a big feature!—or bald-faced lies—e.g., the claim that miners could collude to grab “anyone-can-spend” transactions; no, Segwit full nodes would reject such such blocks as invalid, making such miners waste all their effort.[1]  (This last is not even a Segwit-specific matter:  Any soft fork will result in similar scenarios, which is exactly what makes the fork “soft” even when introducing radically different validation rules.  The alternative is a hardfork.)

The rest of the anti-Segwit arguments are nontechnical.  Some make menacing insinuations about Blockstream:  Very well, assume arguendo that Blockstream is pure evil (facts not in evidence) and totally controls Core (which they evidently don’t).  What is so bad about Segwit?  The question remains unanswered.  The remainder of anti-Segwit spew is merely moronic:  Insults devoid of all substance, at the puerile grade of “Segwit makes you a doodie-head”.

Meanwhile, in so-called “Bitcoin Cash”, almost three and a half months of EDA fluctuations made something tantamount to a premine of fake-Bitcoin.  In that time as well as afterwards, any party exploiting covert ASICBOOST could and can reap BCH at 20+% under the energy cost paid by other miners.  Oh.  Suddenly, it all makes sense.  Cui bono, indeed.  Follow the money.

---

1. Miners have exactly one function:  Byzantine fault-tolerant ordering of transactions.  Important and valuable though that function may be, it is strictly limited in technical scope.  Miners do not have authority over validation:  All full nodes are responsible for enforcing validation, and will reject invalid mined blocks just as if rejecting random garbage.  Such is the power of each and every individual full node.  This is a point of common misunderstanding amongst ignorant fools who imagine that miners somehow own the network; and the misunderstanding is encouraged by persons with material ulterior motives for pretending that miners be Bitcoin gods.

I don't have any hopes related into this matter which I do accept that fees would really be incredibly high as the adoption of bitcoin would still continue to grow.Segwit for me or on other forks are just like ending up some drama and don't really tend to make innovation or solution regarding on this matter which it turns out that it would just be good for easy money or free fork coins. Some people do hate it because it doesn't really give any contributions or actually give an affect on bitcoin development and also it do affect the price as well.

Public Service Announcement:  If your Bitcoin address starts with a “1”, DO NOT COMPLAIN about Segwit not saving you fees!

The first question for those complaining about fees:  Are you using a Segwit address?  That would instantly get you a 75% discount on fees.  A backward-compatible (P2WPKH-in-P2SH (https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/#creation-of-p2sh-p2wpkh-address)) Segwit address looks like this:  36finjay27E5XPDtSdLEsPR1RypfhNW8D8.  Any Bitcoin client made in the past few years can send money to it, so you don’t need to wait for other people to upgrade.  A Segwit-native Bech32 address (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki) looks much different; it is the address format of the future, but only people who have recently upgraded their software would be able to send money to it.  I hope to use Bech32 for my own addresses in a year or so; meanwhile, I have upgraded my software so I can send to them.

Addresses starting with a “1” do not get the Segwit discount, and will never get the Segwit discount.  (Same with some addresses starting with a “3”.  There is no way to identify a P2WPKH-in-P2SH address just by looking at it; that is why it is backward compatible.)  The “discount” is not for nothing; and pedants, please excuse that I am deliberately oversimplifying a bit in this explanation.  What users need to understand is that Segwit helps the network, and they get an instant 75% discount for more making efficient use of the network.  Using an old, non-Segwit address?  You are using more network resources, so you will pay more.

That explains what you can do right now to get lower fees with Segwit.  But there is another part to this:  The fee market.  Several large companies opposed Segwit, and have thus far refused to use it themselves although it would save them huge amounts on fees.  This is distorting the fee market, keeping everybody’s fees higher than should be.  Furthermore, there are other parties deliberately spamming the network with low value/high fee transactions, to drive up fees on purpose.  Both these problems will eventually be solved by economic pressure.  Such problems are expensive for the parties causing them.

All that being said, you should never expect fees to return to anywhere near the levels where they were a few years ago.  Fees used to be absurdly low, because blocks were not full.  Bitcoin was mostly unknown, or considered a toy for nerds.  Now, you are seeing $11k+/BTC exchange rates for the same reason that blocks are full:  Bitcoin is at the threshold of seizing the mainstream, it is valuable, everybody wants it, and lots of people are using it.  You cannot get one without the other.  Bitcoin is not just a cryptocurrency:  It is the cryptocurrency, and demand for block space will always exceed supply.


That.  As for the “drama” you referenced:

What idiot BCH pushers do not realize is that their fees are low, because their huge blocks are almost empty.  Outside of a small, vocal crowd (mis)led by some manipulative people who have money to toss around, nobody cares about their scamcoin.  Their solution to “scaling” is to not need it.

Bitcoin doesn’t need a little bump-up; it needs to scale big.  Its demand-driven market value has increased 100× in the past few years; I think its network transaction capacity needs at least 10000× increase, to be future-proof.  Orders-of-magnitude increase in capacity cannot be achieved by linearly increasing the blocksize.  That is a simple, unavoidable, arithmetical fact; and anybody who says otherwise is either stupid or lying.  The solution is to add another layer.  That would be this Lightning Network thing you have probably heard about.

Activating Segwit was the first step toward supporting that new layer.  Segwit is only the beginning!  As long as certain parties were blocking activation of Segwit, everything else was held up, too.  Now that Segwit is a network reality, developers have the next step in an active testing phase.

Fees will never again be really low for on-chain transactions; for Bitcoin being valuable means that blocks will always be full.  But you can reduce your fees 75% right now by using a Segwit address; and in the near future, you can look forward to really low fees on Lightning.

People would say a lot many things about it but so far what I have learned about segwit2x it is just going to promote the use of bitcoin by reducing the transaction size, time and fees. But half of the world was against it because they actually did not know about it properly. In this crypto world people very quickly just follow the steps of the top members of community rather than using their own brains. Like if one of the core miner would say its not good around 5% of the community would declare this to be not good. Same happened with this too. Miners gave their support to this venture in beginning and snatched that as we moved closer to that block because they knew it would burn a hole in their own pocket by reducing the fees. People blindly just followed the pattern and here we are today still using the same old pattern by faying a lot hefty fees.

It is never easy to accept changes . Even though segwit fork was a soft fork on bitcoin which was meant to increase the effeciency of payments and transactions the but bitcoin community did not seem to support the segwit fork .
The core was not ready to change from the orignal version. Also the feature which was restricting from expanding the blockchain made it more reluctant for the people.

Are you talking about Segwit, or the attempted hostile takeover misleadingly called “Segwit2X”?  I have seen this error pop up a few times on this thread.  So-called “Segwit2X” has nothing to do with Segwit, except as a cheap propaganda ploy.


Say what?  It was Core who created Segwit.  It was Core who fought an uphill battle to get Segwit activated against the wishes of certain powerful parties.  Core won that battle because, contra what you say, the community did support Segwit.  Thus the power of the threat of UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork), which relied entirely on the support of the Bitcoin community.  When it looked like a showdown was approaching wherein the community would force Segwit to activate, some of the anti-Segwit parties split off and cooked up the “New York Agreement” to save face—and attempt ramming through an absurd blocksize hardfork.

Segwit was opposed by (a) certain particular large miners, who evidence suggests are exploiting covert ASICBOOST; (b) certain particular monied interests who want to either centralize control of Bitcoin, or wreck Bitcoin entirely; and, (c) groupies who lapped up the swill dished out by the first two, because they’re idiots.  Now, these people have their own little playpen which they call “Bitcoin Cash”.  They have no dev team worth speaking of, no technological improvements, and no economic support except for a small number of wealthy backers who prop up the price so they can occasionally pump-and-dump.  It would be funny, if it weren’t so pitiful; and it would be sad, if it weren’t so disgusting.

Meanwhile, with Segwit, I currently get a 75% discount on fees using real Bitcoin; and I can look forward to all the Segwit-requiring technological improvements which Core and the Lightning devs[1] have in the pipeline.

---

1. Lightning is not developed by Core, though of course there is some overlap between who is involved with both projects.

I am not sure that people hate segwit.
I believe it is something new and as many times is happening it needs time to be accepted.
Some of the exchanges are not ready yet, wallets aren't either.
If you want to have small fees using it is the only way.

You're not sure people hate SegWit? I guess you don't read crypto currency news  because the SegWit group suspend the fork which ought to happen acouple of weeks back cause 80% of bitcoiner don't support the SegWit2X including the miners.

Repeat ten times slowly, until it sinks in:  “Segwit2X” is not Segwit.  “Segwit2X” is not Segwit.  “Segwit2X” is not Segwit....  Got it?

So-called “Segwit2X” was a scam in name and substance, as I explained above (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2469397.msg25741037#msg25741037).  I 100% support Segwit.  But this fairly represents my opinion of “Segwit2X”, a.k.a the “New York Agreement”:



Thanks for the correction.  You’re absolutely right, “people” don’t hate Segwit.  A small but vocal group of imbeciles led by crooks hates Segwit, and tries to spread a false impression that “people hate Segwit”.  The title of this thread contributes to that.  It’s a cheap propaganda ploy:  “Why do people hate X so much?”, when very few people actually hate X.

You are right, the title is a little misleading, and I guess that the title should be, why is segwit taking so much time to be adopted by users. I think that Bitmain is the only group that didn't really like segwit, mainly because it was done with a soft-fork, and Bitmain's AsicBoost is incompatible with most soft-forks, and this would make them lose their advantage over other miners.

Segwit was a great upgrade, and I'm glad it happened, the way it happened, but I do think it's adoption is taking a lot of time. Finally coinbase has announced that it will adopt segwit, so things will probably go faster now.

Agreed.  Coinbase has been shooting themselves (and their customers) in the foot financially; that economic pressure had to kick in sometime!

As for the long tail of ordinary users, do you have any good ideas for getting the word out that people can save big on fees right now with Segwit addresses?  I mean, people who keep their own private keys but probably don’t run a full node.

Software support is key, and I don’t know too much about different implementations.  It would be helpful if Electrum 3.0 did P2WKH-in-P2SH out of the box; it doesn’t (Bech32 only), but it will successfully restore a BIP39 seed on derivation path m/49'/0'/0' (tested).  I am blissfully ignorant of mobile wallets.  Educating users of Electrum plus popular mobile wallets would probably have a quite considerable “long tail” effect.

Of course I would not yet recommend that people start handing out Bech32 addresses.  Not just yet.  Now, it would be asking for support headaches of the “why can’t people send me money!?” kind.

Thoughts?  I think Segwit will be the most popular technology in the universe, once users see how they can cut their own fees.

(Also, it would be helpful if Core didn’t need to waste dev time on creative defense to protect the network against maliciously coded fork nodes.  Those who need the GUI, will sadly need to wait; and those who don’t need the GUI, also don’t need any hand-holding.)

We had Segwit deposit addresses, Segwit hot wallet refill and segwit cold wallets on the day of activation on btcpop.co
Just to realize that the change goes straight to a p2pkh address when processing withdrawals.
Its easy to blame services but maybe blame Core for still not having a fully supporting wallet?
Most services use the json rpc of bitcoind, to support segwit now we would need to move to raw transactions and change all transactional code.
Where is the point in making so much propaganda for segwit and that most are ready for it but then not even supporting it in the core wallet?
Its now nearly 4 months since activation of segwit.

For sure i'm not going to invest money to create own work arounds or own patches to core code.
We're investing to offer all features in other currencies soon so users can use the features with low fees.
Even the segwit fees are now in avg higher than the non segwit before activation.
There is really no point to invest much time and money to support something what doesn't solve anything at all.

Good to see an early adopter for the technology we awaited so long.  I concur that the lack of Segwit change address support is quite irritating.  That should have been done at least a few months ago.  But I will not so badly blame Core, given the sorts of time sinks which have sucked away developer effort since long before Segwit activated—and reached a time-sucking nadir in the past few months.  For but one of the more recent examples:



Reading in the recent release notes a list of “Network fork safety enhancements (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2388679.msg24412929#msg24412929)”, I can well imagine the internal monologue which must have gone through some dev’s head.  “I need to finally finish this patch for Segwit change address support (plus tests, tests, tests).  No wait, first I need to find some ingenious hack to ban fork nodes who lie about their identities so that they can waste node resources and try to subvert the whole network.  Network safety first.  Sigh.”

It requires prodigious engineering effort to produce mission-critical financial software which handles hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of value, operates in a hostile network environment, and is never, ever allowed to make the sort of mistake which could drop huge amounts of money on the floor because somebody rushed the change address patch.  I’m so glad that Core gives this to you, me, and everybody else for free so we can run our businesses, whether or not we pitch in what we can for what is an open-source project (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls).

Thats ofc nonsense, banning the Segwit2x nodes was pointless, if the for had happened the 1x nodes wouldn't have follow those anyway as the bigger blocks would've been rejected.
And the segwit stuff could've been done long before already on testnet and been coded in to be active when segwit activated.
It was also core who said segwit is ready since years and most of the community is ready for segwit and that segwit would solve scaling issues instant.
It was also BIP91 what was accepted by 100% what activated segwit and what included also 2MB Blocks later, without BIP91 their wouldn't be segwit at all.
UASF would have failed, without UASF there wouldn't be Bitcoin Cash and also no Bitcoin Gold,diamond,and 1000 other forks what will follow.
If core had follow the HK agreement there wouldn't be any of those forks either and Segwit had been active since much longer time.

I didn't wait for segwit i never liked the segwit idea but ofc when it was activated I would support it to offer users lower fees but that doesn't work because it isn't ready in fact.
And now the same people blame businesses for not adopting it.
It was also claimed as easier to do than a HF but in fact it isn't, updating the node software would've been easier than changing a lot of transactional code.
Bech32 was merged in pretty quick without need but a option to set the change address not, that option is missing since p2sh addresses and not just since segwit.
Bech32 is nothing important at all and its not even compatible with old nodes and also confusing for users.
If users request a withdrawal on sites to Bech32 addresses they would fail if the service didn't update.

I disagree with you, SegWit fixes transaction malleability and allows use of payment channels for example.

Fourfold increase of block size is much but not enough at mass adoption stage. Bitcoin needs on-chain scaling like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2381234.0 . Or altcoins can be used instead of split chains (the current state of affairs) but it will be quite messy to setup tens/hundreds of different coins.

Basically it requires work to implement which is not as profitable as floating a shitcoin on your exchange and getting profits off that.
Some companies like blockonomics have already announced segwit support  (https://blog.blockonomics.co/a-segwit-blockexplorer-47cd516dd8c5)

We have about 120 coins on our exchange, our main business is p2p loans and we let users decide what coins they use or not, also my personal preferences doesn't matter much at all ( Would not support segwit personal ).

Offering all features for other coins doesn't mean we stop offering them for Bitcoin, users will just have more choices.
Lets call it market.

And why do you tell me that whatever company announced support?
We supported it as one of the first but can't fully support it as our transactions are done with bitcoind and the change goes straight to non segwit addresses.
If the change address type was a config option we would've full support as the first company few hours after activation of segwit.
We was also the first site who had Bitcoin Cash deposits and Withdrawals enabled and the second who had Bitcoin Gold enabled ( Initial sync on that coin was very slow probably intention so the devs had some advantages over others ).

What I was just initial saying here is that if core had full support in bitcoind then the adoption would already be bigger but users blame only companies here for not supporting it.

And saying that they need time is a lame excuse, for merging Bech32 support what isn't supported by most wallets there was enough time.
And Bech32 causes a lot more confusion in the short. ( I'm neutral on Bech32 personal ).

Go back in history how Segwit was called ready all the time and only the "evil" miners blocked it.
In fact nothing was ready and then the excuse comes that they can't develop when they don't know if it will ever be activated.
Thats another lame excuse as they clearly said its ready.
All the features could've been coded in already and a little check if segwit is active on the network would've been enough.
Segwit supporters also said more than once that Segwit will solve the scaling issues instant, after it was activated they switched to "give it some time".
It really doesn't matter if someone like segwit or not, after it was activated most would just use it to avoid high fees if it was possible at least.


Mallaeability is not a big issue and there was better prospals to fix them on all transactions not only on segwit ( Flextrans as example ).
But those would need a HF.
I don't like the payment channels either as it causes or could cause a lot new problems and doesn't fix on chain problems at all.

In the end it doesn't matter at all, not scaling on chain caused the forks and will cause a lot more forks and those causes lot more work and problems.
On chain scaling wouldn't be a problem a HF would've been easier to deal with than all the mess now and all the things Segwit does would've been possible without if a HF was done.
Now Bitcoin will be forced to HF also in the future as it can't compete with the Bitcoin Cash DAA in the long, the first time bigger effect you'll see in a few hours for the next diff epoch.
Blocks will probably be slower for longer time and the backlog of tranactions bigger for longer time and fees higher for longer time and it could happen that the problems only increases with each cycle.
1. Cycle faster blocks as now but still mempool not a single time empty during this epoch.
2. Cycle slower blocks with even higher backlog in the mempool and higher fees for longer time.

It could happen that the cycle with faster blocks becomes even shorter and the cycles with slower blocks longer.
Must not happen and the price difference + backlog with high fees will cause also hashpower switching but in the long it will happen.

Some users fears huge blocks but ignore the fact that scaling on chain doesn't mean there can't be devloped sidechain solutions as well and if those are better they will lead to smaller blocks on chain no matter what the max blocksize is.

Bigger blocks now isn't a problem at all and we don't know if the current sidechain solutions are the best or if there will be better solutions in the future, its trying to solve non existing problems and thinking we're smarter now than people in the future.

Reality is just proving that there was so much going wrong and still going wrong but most are still ignoring reality.

The 2 ( biggest ) mistakes Satoshi Nakamoto made:
1. No dynamic blocksize based on demand like the daa ( Max blocksize = average Blocksize over last N blocks + xx% with a limited max increasing and decreasing to avoid manipulation).
2. Making Gavin Andersen lead dev without asking him.

Without those 2 mistakes we won't debating a scaling issue at all and still smart and good devs would develop more solutions what gives value to the network.

Oh, stick a fork in it.  Five minutes of searching found that you’ve embraced “Bitcoin Unlimited”, “Bitcoin ABC”, “Bitcoin Cash”, “Segwit2X”—seemingly every attempt to divide-and-conquer Bitcoin in the past few years!—and you hate Core.

“Btcpop’s Preparation for Potential Hard Forks (https://archive.is/jjzFL)” involves your declaration “Btcpop holds an opinion on the debate (pro-emergent consensus (https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BUIP/blob/master/005.mediawiki))” (note BU link!).  “...Therefore, Btcpop will support all competing forms of Bitcoin and grant each option to our users.”  (Bold and underline in the original.)  “Btcpop’s Perspective on Segwit2x (https://archive.is/YTyjS)” is that “Bitcoin Core has become a anti-free market cult like bully in the Bitcoin space.”  Thanks so much for elucidating your opinion; but Core is sweet and kind, whereas I am a cult-like bully.  At least toward people who try to wreck Bitcoin.  Why, I might become downright nasty if I were to ever find out that Btcpop is “Leading the way with Bitcoin Cash (https://archive.is/DqRXi)” because “Btcpop’s owner Casimir1904, a Bitcoin user since 2011 and technical wizard, clearly understood the [‘Bitcoin Cash’ fork] event and knew exactly how to prepare.”  (Blah, blah, blah.  Genius, you are.)

What else did I find in five minutes?  People on Reddit discussing something which looks an awful lot like you tried to Sibyl attack with “Bitcoin Unlimited” nodes (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5yyqt1/evidence_of_widespread_segwit_support_near50_of/detyxhe/); I suppose that must be your means of achieving “emergent consensus”.  But if you did, the attempt must have gone over like a wet firecracker:  Bitcointalk user cellard found that “All BU nodes are… fake VMs from Roger Ver except a couple idiots that run it too (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1838497.msg18304164#msg18304164)” with a link showing nodes running, hmmm, “/https://btcpop.co - Free People - Free Market - Free Money - BitcoinUnlimited:1.0.1.1/”.

Interesting allegations there.  In five minutes; I wonder what an hour’s search would find.  Well, if you so enjoy (futilely) playing such network monkey games, it is no wonder you now say this:


Thank you, Core, for those aforementioned “Network safety enhancements”.

Such a prolific little forker you are.  Tell me, Casimir1904, are you trying to convert me for “Bitcoin Jesus”?  Or are you ready to sell me some Bitcoin Cash Doubleplus Diamond Unlimited Super2X Plutonium ABCXYZQQQ?  That, I will buy—in exchange for my instant gale of contemptuous laughter.  I’m cracking up right now.  Literally-not-figuratively LOLling.  I needed that; it’s been a long day.

---

Edit:  I was writing this when Casimir1904 posted again (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2469397.msg25841839#msg25841839); saw that afterwards.  I think I inadvertently answered it already.

I openly support on chain scaling, that was never a secret. 
I run for a while 100+ BU nodes just to show that the amount of nodes doesn't matter after a argument with someone who said that majority support core because it has more nodes.

The most lead devs of core wasn't around in 2011 at all.
Gmaxwell has "proven" how bitcoin can't work before even.
Luke-JR says that bitcoin should stay for nerds and shouldn't become a big thing.
Luke-JR also says that governments got their authority from god.

Could you try to stay at the facts?
We supported BIP91 like 100% of all miners at that time.
At the moment of writing that Blog post ( What wasn't written by me as you could see ) Segwit2x had 90%+ Miner support.
Why should we support something with 10% or less support what would've probably die if Segwit2x had stay at 90%+?

Segwit2x didn't happen now I support Bitcoin Cash personal more and will offer also features on btcpop for Bitcoin Cash.

How much money did you lost so far because not scaling?
Guess you don't run a business?
With the fork mess there was far less action on many sites as users kept of course their coins to get fork coins.
Transactions fees are one of or highest expenses since months.
Some Transactions could cost already $1000+ ( Lot inputs ), and thats what you get as business, lot small inputs what need to be forwarded to fewer outputs.

I'm in Bitcoin since 2011, I promoted Bitcoin, build business around it and I'm risking a lot of MY money.
And I see how expenses grows for us and income decreases the same time as users are not willing to pay high fees for deposits and withdrawals and p2p loans includes lot deposits and withdrawals.
Investors deposit small amounts or bigger amounts and invest in loans, the borrowers withdrawal the coins and deposit them back to repay what causes also lot smaller withdrawals again.

But as said in my previous post... Most are still just ignoring the reality and then blame those who aren't and who switch more to other solutions.
Not being able to find the reason they switch to other solutions.

I'm an average user, and I don't have a lot of tech and development knowledge, even though I have some computer science education. Although the only thing this does for me right now, is to keep me interested about the dev aspects of bitcoin. Since this is hard for me, I'm assuming it will be incredibly hard for the "long tail of ordinary users", that don't have any computer science background. Those users just want to keep things simple, and have a good experience while they use bitcoin, or any other crytocurrency.

Sure they want the faster and cheaper solution, but they will end up using what is offered to them by the masses. Of course that some sort of awareness might help, because they could demand the better solution to be implemented, but they will still only use it when it's available on their "usual services", and they won't search for it by themselves, even if they can.

This is why I think that the segwit use adoption must come from wallets of course, but specially from exchanges, and merchants. We have Trezor, Ledger, Electrum, and Core (probably some more, but I'm not aware of it) allowing users to make segwit tx, but they won't do it, unless the services they use accepts them. Coinbase move is very important, and others need to follow, that's why I "blame" services for the slow process in segwit adoption.

Even for those that do search for solutions, and try to keep informed about what is happening in the "bitcoin dev world", sometimes it's hard to get reliable, and easy to understand information about certain things, and this makes the decision about using or not using something very hard.
For instance I read that Electrum 3.0 is the only wallet that fully supports the bech32 address format. Trezor and Ledger for example, use the nested P2SH addresses (assuming these are the P2SH-P2WPKH addresses). Both support segwit transactions, but from what I read, the new bech32 format (native segwit address) is more efficient since the nested P2SH addresses needs 10% more space to make a segwit tx.

I'm of course more inclined to use Electrum 3.0 with the bech32 addresses, but now I know that there are two formats that are compatible with segwit, and I don't even know if they are compatible between each other (hoping they are, but I still need to do some research about it). I also don't understand why only Electrum is going for the apparently best solution. I guess this is the "other side effect" of decentralization, and to make things clear I'm definitely not against it, but I guess this makes updates harder to apply.

Core doesn't support segwit in full yet.
Core has merged bech32 addresses so with current version it should work to send to and receive from bech32 addresses.
I assume that everyone can receive from bech32 but older wallets can't send to them as they are invalid for them.

I like on chain optimizing so Bech32 isn't bad but who knows about Bech32? Maybe 0.1% of the Bitcoin users? Probably less.

And as said earlier, services often use bitcoind for their transactions and as long core doesn't support it in full they can't support it without a lot of development.
And even if services switch to Segwit then still not every transactions is segwit.
Coins already on services aren't in segwit addresses and moving them first to segwit to do segwit transactions increases the cost for services.
Adoption would start with offering deposit addresses for segwit and then some transactions will be segwit and some not till all coins are naturally turned over.
On the first step users could save a bit in fees on deposits but not on withdrawals on most services.
Hardfork with flextrans + bigger blocks would have solve all current problems and still would allow sidechain development.
This one was the worst solution with segwit, Till the time Segwit adoption comes closer to 100% the blocks will be full already also with Segwit transactions...